Short Reads

Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists fr

Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

01.08.2018 EU law

On 7 June 2018, the Belgian Court of Cassation, ruled that a decision of the Pharmacists Association Appeals Council (Appeals Council) prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords to offer over-the-counter (OTC) products violated Belgian competition law because the Appeals Council did not sufficiently justify why such a prohibition was necessary for health reasons. The Appeals Council must now issue a new decision.

The Pharmacists Association (Orde van Apothekers - Ordre des Pharmaciens) is a professional association of pharmacists. Membership is mandatory partly to ensure that ethical and moral standards are maintained in the profession.

In the case at hand, the Appeals Council held that using Google Adwords for OTC products (i) lured customers into buying pharmacy products, (ii) resulted in customers not being able to access better care within their immediate geographical location and (iii) amounted to a "commercial exaggeration"  contrary to the principles of honour and dignity, which lie at the core of the profession. The Appeals Council also held that the responsible distribution of medicine requires personal contact with pharmacists, which is displaced by the use of Google Adwords.

The Court of Cassation held that the decision of the Appeals Council violated competition law. It confirmed the applicability of competition rules to pharmacists, noting that despite their social role, pharmacists are involved in exchanging goods or services and are therefore 'undertakings' subject to competition law. In addition, the Court concluded that the Pharmacists Association is also subjected to competition law, even though it pursues a statutory and not an economic objective.

The  Court considered that the Appeals council decision was based on the material interests of the pharmacists and general notions on the way the supply of medicine should be organised economically. Through its decision the Appeals council restricted competition without providing specific reasoning why the complainant would – through the use of Google Adwords for OTC products – endanger the public interest in terms of public health or the ethical standards of the profession.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse of dominance case
  2. General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons
  3. General Court dismisses appeals by investor against power cable cartel fine
  4. Google receives a second record fine of EUR 34 billion for imposing restrictions on Android device makers
  5. European Commission issues a new Best Practices Code for State aid control
  6. District Court in the Netherlands rules on limitation periods in CRT case
  7. Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB

Team

Related news

01.08.2018 EU law
General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons

Short Reads - On 13 July 2018, the General Court annulled the EUR 1.13 million fine imposed on Stührk Delikatessen Import GmbH & Co. KG (Stührk) by the European Commission in 2013 for Stührk's participation in the shrimp cartel. The Court ruled that the Commission had failed to adequately state reasons in the contested decision as to why the cartel participants were granted divergent fine reductions.

Read more

01.08.2018 EU law
Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB

Short Reads - On 20 July 2018, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland published another interim judgment in the ongoing proceedings between TenneT, the grid operator in the Netherlands, and ABB in relation to the gas insulated switchgear (GIS) infringement. After the Dutch Supreme Court had confirmed in a judgment of 8 July 2016 [see our August 2016 Newsletter] that the passing-on defence is available under Dutch law, the Court of Appeal of Gelderland decided to appoint independent economic experts to provide input on the calculation of overcharge and the existence of pass-on.

Read more

Our website uses cookies: third party analytics cookies to best adapt our website to your needs & cookies to enable social media functionalities. For more information on the use of cookies, please check our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Please note that you can change your cookie opt-ins at any time via your browser settings.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring